No-one said “regardless of loss”, if by that you mean no matter how high their losses were. What I’m saying is more like “despite the level of losses suffered historically”; the Germans inflicted grievous losses on the Russians but nevertheless too few to alter the force ratio in their favour, rather it tilted further in the Russians’ favour as the war went on.
To put it another way, from around December 1941 on the Russians were able to more than replace their losses, bad though they were, while the Germans could not. The position I (and I believe Dissonance) are putting is that absent Overlord this relentless fact would still take the Germans down in pretty much the historical timeframe. They still would have had to guard the whole of the French, Belgian and Dutch coast, and most of the troops in France were lower class troops, Osttruppen, destroyed units being rebuilt, and so on - the number of men freed up by a failed or absent Overlord is not very many in the context of the eastern front.
The only exception might be the pointless attack in Dec 1944 (the Bulge) but again that number men would have made little if any difference if they all went east instead.